A judge and prosecutor dismissed the criminal allegations against John Leon Smith, but in the eyes of the Tennessee Board of Parole he's still guilty.

The man will remain in prison until next year at least — maybe until 2026 — despite a 2017 law he believes was meant to help people like him: people who were released on parole but return to prison because of a new arrest on charges that are later dismissed.

The parole board says that law is not retroactive and doesn't apply to Smith.

Representatives of a state senator instrumental in passing the measure say that's not the case.

"The Board of Parole should convene a hearing, as provided by the law, to understand why this innocent man remains in prison," said Isaac Kimes, a lawyer and policy analyst for Senate Minority Leader Lee Harris of Memphis.

'That's the end of that'

Smith served about half of a 40-year prison sentence for a violent armed robbery and threatening to kill workers at a Nashville restaurant in 1992. Smith fired several shots, which wounded one worker, and as he fled from police, fired shots at officers, according to appeals court records.

"I was drinking and drugging and it cost me my life," he said. "I threw it away in 30 minutes."

He was released on parole in October 2013, according to state records.

Seventeen months later he was arrested on two felonies, alleging possession of marijuana and a weapon, court records show. At the time, Smith lived at a North Nashville home with two other people.

Because of his criminal history, Smith wasn't supposed to have guns.

Court records and transcripts say undercover police intercepted a UPS package with nearly 8 pounds of marijuana inside and delivered it to the home, where Smith answered the door. About 30 minutes later, another man arrived and tried to leave with the package before he was arrested, according to a transcript of one detective's testimony.

Officers later found a handgun in furniture in Smith's bedroom and three rifles and a shotgun in a separate closet, records say.

A Nashville judge dismissed the gun charge two weeks later after hearing testimony from the homeowner that Smith did not know the guns were in the home and the handgun belonged to someone else, according to a court transcript.

In March 2016, a year after Smith's arrest, prosecutors dismissed the other charge against Smith — the drug crime — after the man who claimed the package of pot pleaded guilty, court records show.

“Your case is dismissed," a judge told Smith, according to the transcript. "That’s the end of that, so, for you."

'I need your help'

Smith's new arrests prompted a parole revocation hearing in April 2016. Smith said during that hearing his charges had been dismissed, and the hearing officer noted as much, parole records say.

Yet two members of the board said Smith should return to prison, finding his conduct violated rules that say parolees should not have weapons or drugs and must obey all laws.

Smith remains in prison because Tennessee's parole system does not follow the same rules as its courts.

Often a parolee who is arrested on a new charge faces related violations, called "technical" violations.

For example, Smith's arrest led to five violations: two because of his new charges, one for failing to report the new arrest, and one each for breaking rules that say parolees cannot possess weapons or drugs. (His parole officer ultimately dropped the reporting violation, records show.)

The board can revoke a person's parole based on those violations — no matter what happens in court. Even though Smith's new charges were dismissed, the Board of Parole found by a "preponderance of the evidence" that he had violated rules based on "his underlying conduct," according to the board's spokeswoman.

It's unclear how often that happens.

Buy Photo

Robert E. Polk spent two years incarcerated in Tennessee after false allegations led to his parole being revoked.(Photo: Larry McCormack / The Tennessean)

A new law gives new hope

A new law signed by Gov. Bill Haslam in April gave Smith fresh hope he could appeal. The Democratic-backed effort received unanimous support in the Senate.

The law directs the parole board to grant appeals hearings to inmates whose parole had been revoked based only on new criminal charges that ultimately were dismissed. It was proposed by lawmakers who saw The Tennessean's reporting on Robert E. Polk.

Polk, of Nashville, remained in prison for a year after charges against him were dropped, and even after his wife — who made up allegations against him — was convicted of perjury.

Smith believed that law applied to his case and enlisted high-powered help. He worked with Kimes, in Harris' office, and Will Conway, a defense lawyer who represented Polk.

Conway contacted the Board of Parole in August, appealing Smith's case. Per a provision of the law, Conway got Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Jackson to sign off that Smith's charges had been dismissed.

And the assistant prosecutor denied knowing why the gun charge was dismissed.

Jackson, the assistant prosecutor, told The Tennessean that he informed the parole board he could not speak to the gun charge because he didn't handle that part of the case.

The law only "applies to cases decided after its effective date," according to Melissa McDonald, the parole board's spokeswoman.

She said that means only parolees who returned to prison after Haslam signed the law in April.

CLOSE

Tennessee Board of Parole Executive Director David Liner spoke to a House panel, pledging support for a bill but also questioning the bill's value. His comments surprised and upset the sponsor, Memphis Democrat Antonio Parkinson.

An original draft of the bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Antonio Parkinson, D-Memphis, included language that would have made the law retroactive. But as the bill was edited, in consultation with parole staff, that disappeared.

Parkinson, who was not familiar with Smith's case, said the intent of the bill remains the same: that anyone sent back to prison on false allegations should get an appeal hearing.

"The intent was for anyone, regardless of when it happened to you, if you fit this set of criteria you should be able to apply (this law)," he said.

Parkinson said the legislature may need to clarify the law.

To critics of the board, Smith's case reflects a big-picture resistance to releasing prisoners.

"I certainly do not know why you have such a desire for innocent people to sit in prison, but it is clear that you and your staff do," Conway wrote in an email to Liner. "This is disheartening as you are supposed to be there for inmates and their rehabilitation and not keeping prisons full."

As it stands, Smith, 51, will stay in prison at least until he is next considered for parole in April. He could serve the rest of his sentence, which is until 2026, according to the Department of Correction.

He doesn't want to wait.

"I need your help," he told The Tennessean in an August phone call.

Language of the law

The parole board's ruling in Smith's case has left the law's authors frustrated.

"Our office worked with the Board of Parole, including their director and legal counsel, on the legislation," Kimes, the senator's analyst, said. "We waited to make sure the new law fit within the board’s infrastructure, we made sure that there were safeguards before an expedited hearing would be considered and or granted.

"The plain language of this law is clear that it applies to John L. Smith’s case."

The parole board does not agree.

"The Board of Parole is in receipt of your email regarding Mr. John Smith," Liner wrote to Conway in late August.

"It will be added to Mr. Smith’s file."

Reach Stacey Barchenger at sbarchenger@tennessean.com and on Twitter @sbarchenger.

A picture of parole violators in Tennessee

In fiscal year 2015-16, 1,903 people returned to Tennessee prisons because of parole violations, according to the Department of Correction.

The Tennessean randomly selected 200 of those individuals for further analysis, examining public records that document those violations.

Hundreds of pages of records show that, among those individuals:

► 158 faced a combination of new charges and technical violations (technical violations include things like failing drug tests or skipping meetings with a parole officer).

► 70 of those people had technical violations that were only related to the new charges.

► 26 were for technical violations only.

► 16 violated parole on new charges only.

Parolees who were alleged to have committed new crimes were charged with:

► Theft, 41 times

► Drug crimes, 33 times

► Domestic violence, 27 times

► Driving or driver's license offenses, 12 times

► Driving under the influence, 12

► Robbery, 5

► Sex crimes, 4

► Murder, 1

(Twenty-fivepeople who were charged with multiple new offenses of different types, for example, domestic violence and theft, are not counted above.)

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction parole violation reports

About the parole system

The parole system is split between two state agencies. Parole officers, who supervise parolees and file violations, work for the Department of Correction. Hearing officers, who review those violations and make recommendations whether someone should be paroled, report to the Board of Parole.

In many cases, that hearing is the only interaction a prisoner has with parole employees. When a recommendation is made, it's then passed along to board members until enough agree to send a person back to prison or release an inmate.